Pension Schemes Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I inform the House that Lords amendments 68 to 76, 78, 80, 84 and 86 engage the Commons’ financial privilege. If any of these Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Clause 2

Asset management

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendments 5, 6, 13, 15 to 24, 26, 27, 30 to 43, 77 to 79, 83, 85 to 88, and Government motions to disagree.

Government amendments (a) to (c) to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to Lords amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88.

Lords amendments 2 to 4, 7 to 12, 14, 25, 28, 29, 44 to 76, 80 to 82, 84 and 89.

[Torsten Bell]

Let me start by thanking Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny of the Bill before us today. I thank Members of the other place for their amendments, which we are considering today; in particular, I thank Baroness Sherlock and Lord Katz for their steering of the Bill in recent months.

This is a complex Bill, but it is one with a simple goal: higher returns for pension savers. As I noted on Second Reading, this is a particular responsibility of this House, because it is legislative action, in the form of auto-enrolment, that has got Britain back into the habit of workplace pension savings. We must ensure that those savings deliver, overcoming the challenges of a system that is too fragmented and where there is insufficient focus on how hard people’s savings work to support them in retirement.

A complex Bill means something else: amendments. As is normal, the Government brought forward changes in the other place that we today ask this House to endorse. The vast majority of them are technical, ensuring that the legislation works as intended. Of the more substantive changes, I will highlight three.

First, the Government tabled amendments in the other place that will help to ensure that superfunds will not be forced to wind up when they still provide a high level of security to their members. Secondly, on the Atomic Weapons Establishment pension scheme, we are reflecting the reality that since 2021, AWE has been wholly owned by the Ministry of Defence. Its closely defined benefit pension scheme is backed by a Crown guarantee. These Government amendments therefore move it on to the same basis as other central Government pension schemes; the accrued rights of members are of course fully protected. Finally, on the value for money measures, the Government amendments provide for provisions to be commenced via regulations, to allow decisions about the introduction of elements of the VFM framework to reflect detailed design work and consultation.

Peers in the other place have, as always, provided useful scrutiny of the Bill, so let me turn to doing justice to their amendments. First, there are the Lords amendments to the local government pension scheme. Lords amendment 1 understandably tries to introduce an explicit prohibition on regulations about investment in specific assets or asset classes, or about the location of investments. That is duplicative, because a 2020 Supreme Court ruling effectively means that LGPS regulations cannot provide such direction without a specific basis from Parliament, and there are no new provisions in the Bill that would allow it to be provided.

Lords amendments 5 and 6 relate to worries about excessive prudence in the valuations of the local government pension scheme. I recognise the intent behind these Lords amendments, given the importance of those valuations for decisions about contribution levels, and I can offer hon. Members some reassurance on that front. The 2025 valuations look set to see the average employer contribution rate in England and Wales reduce by slightly less than 5% on average, which is a substantial reduction. Lords amendment 5 would introduce specific benchmarks for the next valuation in 2028, but the right way to learn lessons from this valuation is via the statutory review by the Government Actuary’s Department, which will begin shortly.

Lords amendment 6 focuses not on the LGPS valuations themselves, but on facilitating employers seeking interim reviews between valuations. I have heard calls for that from several Members over the last few months. However, the Government have already committed to consulting on regulations governing interim contribution reviews, reflecting the requirement in the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 to consult on changes to regulations—something that this Lords amendment would breach.

Let me turn to small pots. I am pleased to see that there remains a strong consensus on the need to act here, given the costs to individuals and to the pension system as a whole of the proliferation of small pots. This is an area where work begun under the Conservatives. Lords amendment 13 probes the case for extending the dormancy period for automatic consolidation from 12 months to 36 months. I recognise the intent, but that would be a mistake. It would significantly prolong the period during which a pot remains both small and dormant, with members facing multiple sets of charges and the wider scheme membership continuing to subsidise scheme losses on such pots, which might total around £50 million per year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

If I have understood the hon. Member’s question, we are ruling out the ability for the power to be used for any purpose other than for the broad private asset class. That would include questions of specific asset classes, but it would also include questions of geography. I hope that gives him the reassurance he is looking for.

It is also in the interests of savers to tackle the UK’s fragmented pensions landscape. Scale matters: it reduces costs, opens up a wider range of investment strategies and enables more active asset ownership. Those arguments, I think, have cross-party consensus, and they lie behind the measures in the Bill to require pension schemes to operate at scale in the years ahead. Unfortunately, that policy objective, motivated by a desire to ensure that savers get the best returns, would be undermined by Lords amendments 26 and 37, which seek to create more exemptions from the scale requirements for small schemes. They would do so in a way that would create ongoing uncertainty for years as schemes, regulators and likely courts debate whether or not the conditions for such exemptions have been met, a process that itself would impose significant costs on savers. Both regulators have expressed their concern that, as a result, these amendments would be inoperable.

I do, however, recognise the case that has been made, in this House and in the other place, for the importance of both competition and innovation in the market. That is what lies behind the pragmatic approach we have taken to achieving scale: not only have we set a pragmatic £25 billion starting point, but smaller schemes will be given time to reach that point, with the transition pathway lasting until 2035. The new entrant pathway will also provide a route for truly new and innovative disruptors to enter the market. This supports the policy intent of Lords amendments 35 and 43, which require the Secretary of State to have regard to innovation and competition when making regulations that support scale. Those amendments are, however, largely duplicative, given that the Bill already sets out that regulations made under the clauses in chapter 4 must take into account the conclusions of the review of non-scale default arrangements, and that review will consider innovation and competition.

Turning from private to public pension schemes, Lords amendments 77 and 85 seek a review of the long-term affordability of public service pension schemes, a matter that I am sure many Members are interested in. The content of the proposed review, however, overlaps almost entirely with existing mechanisms through which public service pension details are reported, not least the Office for Budget Responsibility and its reports and the whole of Government accounts. Reflecting major reforms over recent years, those mechanisms provide important reassurance that the cost of public sector pensions as a share of GDP is set to fall significantly in the years ahead.

Lords amendments 78 and 86 deal with the Pension Protection Fund and the potential for that fund to discharge its existing liabilities to members through a lump sum payment. I understand the sentiments of those in the other place who brought forward those amendments, in recognition of the absence of pre-1997 increases in PPF compensation, but the amendments would not achieve their intended objective of changing the level of compensation to which members are entitled. Instead, the Government are acting to improve the PPF safety net, with the Bill providing for prospective pre-1997 indexation of compensation for members whose former schemes provided for those increases.

Turning back to today’s savers, we all want to see more engagement with pension savings. I am an optimist on this front: as DC pots grow, so will engagement with those savings. Lords amendment 79 seeks to support that engagement from the perspective of providers, instigating a review of marketing and member communication rules, but instead of another review, the Government favour acting to make it easier for pension schemes to give high-quality support to their members. That is the purpose of the new targeted support regime, allowing schemes—for example—to suggest appropriate contribution and drawdown rates. In developing that policy, we have considered the interaction with the direct marketing rules contained in the privacy and electronic communications regulations. As a result, the Government have committed to take forward secondary legislation to amend those regulations, and we will also return to this issue as we develop default pension regulations through consultation later this year.

I close by thanking peers for their scrutiny of the Bill, and for the discussions I have had with many of them about it. I have endeavoured to do justice to the amendments retuned to us, and particularly to the motivations behind them. In aggregate, despite the divisions that the Lobbies of the House and of the other place exist to facilitate, we all want to see a flourishing pensions system that delivers for savers. This Bill will play a major part in making that happen, supporting a landscape of bigger, better pension schemes that are focused on the returns they deliver for members and, ultimately, the comfortable and hopefully long retirements that we all want our constituents to enjoy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Who knew that the Pension Schemes Bill would become so controversial? It is a Bill on which there was so much consensus; a Bill begun by one party in government and now being continued by another; a Bill that could have sailed through Parliament. But no, that was not to be, because the Government had an idea—a bad idea. Labour saw £400 billion-worth of pension funds, the savings built up through years of successful auto-enrolment, and it was tempted. We can picture Labour Members looking at the pensions piggybank and saying to each other, “Just imagine what we could do with that money—we could perhaps put it towards some of the Energy Secretary’s net zero schemes.” They have taxed the country to the hilt, they cannot bring themselves to make savings on welfare, and they have run the Treasury dry, so now they are coming for pensions.

Labour snuck in the power that we talk about as mandation under the auspices of a backstop to the voluntary Mansion House agreement. Well, well, well. It really did not have to be this way. If only the Pensions Minister had been a little more receptive to suggestions from other parties or from the pension sector itself. It is hard to find anyone who supports his mandation policy. Pensions UK, the Pensions Management Institute, the Association of British Insurers, Aviva and BlackRock—I could go on—are all against mandation, as are any number of economists and respected voices, from Paul Johnson to Dominic Lawson, and even the Minister’s former colleague Ed Balls. In the other place, noble Lords in their droves have sought to expose this policy for what it is. He should have listened to their debate, as I did, but listening may not be something he likes to do. He even blocked one respected industry voice, Tom McPhail, on social media when Tom simply called out mandation for what it is: a dangerous power grab by the Government.